Pattern-Aware Data Augmentation for LiDAR 3D Object Detection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous driving datasets are often skewed and in particular, lack training data for objects at farther distances from the ego vehicle. The imbalance of data causes a performance degradation as the distance of the detected objects increases. In this paper, we propose pattern-aware ground truth sampling, a data augmentation technique that downsamples an object's point cloud based on the LiDAR's characteristics. Specifically, we mimic the natural diverging point pattern variation that occurs for objects at depth to simulate samples at farther distances. Thus, the network has more diverse training examples and can generalize to detecting farther objects more effectively. We evaluate against existing data augmentation techniques that use point removal or perturbation methods and find that our method outperforms all of them. Additionally, we propose using equal element AP bins to evaluate the performance of 3D object detectors across distance. We improve the performance of PV-RCNN on the car class by more than 0.7 percent on the KITTI validation split at distances greater than 25 m.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it